Hi, we are starting registering DOIs with crossref for journal previously registering DOIs with datacite.
The crossref plugin for OJS is considering all the datacite DOIs as DOI to be registered, marking them with “not registered” status.
How can we exclude these dois from the registration process?
Best regards
Stefano
1 Like
Hi @bolelligallevi,
Can you please indicate which specific version of OJS you are using (e.g. 3.3.0-8)? Please include this information in your posts.
Best regards,
Roger
PKP Team
Hi @bolelligallevi,
Thank you for that info. There is a manual deposit option for DOIs, whereby you choose which ones you are sending to crossref. See here in our documentation: Crossref XML Export Plugin (OJS 3.2+)
If you leave the boxes unchecked using the Crossref export plugin, those DOIs should not be sent to Crossref, and thus not registered and should stay the same as their existing DOIs. Perhaps you could try this with a limited number of DOIs to be certain? I’m also tagging @AhemNason here - our resident Crossref/DOI expert to see if he can offer any advice.
-Roger
PKP Team
Hi @rcgillis,
thanks for your help.
Waiting for @AhemNason, I know that is possible manually manage the DOIs to send to crossref, but our platform has more than 50 journals and it’s not possible to manage them manually, we need the automatical registration of DOIs via cronjob, and we need to be sure that only crossref DOIs are sent at least because the fee per DOI.
Are you or @AhemNason sure that DOIs not marked are not sent, in particular that they skip the cronjob scheduled sending? We are trying to do a test similar to the one you suggest: for a journal with limited datacite DOIs we mark datacite DOIs as “Marked active” (see image) to be sure that they are not sent when some crossref DOIs will be scheduled for registration… but we have journal with hundred of datacite registered DOIs that is hard to manually mark.
Moreover, I think that the DOI registration plugins (both Datacite and Crossref) should filter the DOI to be registered on the prefix specified in settings…
Thanks and best regards
Stefano
If you set them as Marked Active they won’t be pushed to any registration service, correct. If you want automatic deposit for the newer, Crossref DOIs and don’t want to accidentally push the older Datacite ones, just select all those already-deposited DOIs and select “marked active”.
I’d note too that even if you did try to send those DOIs to Crossref, it likely wouldn’t deposit. Crossref and Datacite are both doi.org DOI registration services and my (perhaps faulty) assumption is that neither organization can register a DOI overtop of the other agency.
Even if they are hard to manually mark, that’s your best bet. The plugins don’t talk to each other, so there’s no way to flag to the system that your registration agency has changed.
The reason we don’t have it only register to the prefix in settings is because it is not uncommon for a journal to change prefixes if it moves service providers or publishers. This means they historically have two different DOI prefixes. If they mint new DOIs for all the old content, then they are also responsible for aliasing the location of all of those old DOIs. Registration agencies perform title transfers often, where a member is given ownership of old DOIs provided by a publisher. It’s just not a given that a journal will only ever have one prefix. Some have multiple. And it should be ok for them to update an old prefix with new metadata instead of minting new DOIs.
Mike
1 Like
Hi @AhemNason, thank you very much for your answer, we are marking datacite articles as “Marked Active” but a collegue of an other italian OJS installation has confirmed yesterday that datacite DOIs are not considered by Crossref (if no transfer has been made) even if they are not marked at all.
I can’t understand your final statement: if a journal can have more than a prefix for registration agency, the plugin should have place for all of them in the settings, but in the article section there should be only articles and issues of the agency considered by the plugin. Actually, the plugin (but maybe is the same for datacite plugin) build the XML and send for registration all the articles despite the settings, resulting inefficient for every journal with only one prefix…
Best regards
Stefano
So, let’s say I was with Springer Journals for some period of time. Springer assigned my journal a DOI prefix. And I made a decision to leave Springer and independently manage my journal.
So I move all the articles over to OJS and someone helps me with the import so that all the DOIs from that era can be stored accurately in the database. That’s step one. The prefix and suffixes for those titles need to be in my DB.
Then, I have to initiate what’s called a title transfer with Crossref (or datacite). Because Springer still owns those DOIs. You can’t update a DOI you don’t own. I don’t need to mint whole new DOIs, instead, they can be added to my account as part of the title transfer.
So I email Crossref and get my own Crossref account. They can’t give me the same prefix. Springer uses it for more than one title. But, I can at least get the right to update my existing DOIs that have the old Springer prefix.
So now I’m working on my journal and I have to set the plugin up properly so that my new prefix works with my new publications. OJS can only have one prefix configured to assign to articles. Journals, in general, should only have one prefix that they are depositing to at a time. But because I have ownership of this specific subset of old DOIs with the springer prefix,, I can update the metadata for them so they point to the new location.
There’s no reason for me to be able to edit the old DOI prefixes, because I shouldn’t be.
And, there’s a way to transfer a prefix between Datacite and Crossref
You can contact Crossref about a title transfer between the two services, keep the existing prefix, and then just register all the datacite DOIs with Crossref so you can keep them up to date with just the crossref plugin. Crossref doesn’t charge for these deposits.
1 Like
Hi @AhemNason, thank you very much, your answer clarify the scenario.
I still think that the current logic is not the best: the normal situation is probably not having old DOIs with a different prefix, and the title transfer offered by crossref is not always possible/easy to manage (we considered it but we still use the datacite prefix, so it was not possible) and it’s surprising (or at least it was to us) to find datacite DOIs in crossref plugin without understing why or if they were going to be registered or not…
Maybe something of this thread could be usefull in the PKP DOI documentation…
Best regards
Stefano
Hi @AhemNason
We, too, are shifting export plugin from Datacite to Crossref. We don’t have to transfer any articles, we are just starting using Crossref from now on. We still have the Datacite plugin for some of our journals, but most will make the shift.
Can you confirm that no harm will be done to the existing Datacite DOIs, when we activate the Crossref plugin? They will not be overwritten and there will be no parallel DOIs?
Or is this only the case when we manually check all the boxes that should or shouldn’t have new DOIs?
Thank you for your clarification.
Best regards, Anna (using 3.2.1.3)
Hi @AnnaStegger
I would recommend you do the title transfer as I mentioned above between Datacite and Crossref. Part of the issue is that, should you ever need to update metadata for one of the Datacite DOIs, you’ll have to remember to swap back to the old plugin. And, presumably, you don’t want to have both a Datacite membership to maintain and a Crossref membership to maintain. This would cause the least amount of issues, I presume. Crossref would be able to advise you on any potential hiccups when you request the prefix transfer. The two organizations work together often!
Best,
Mike